PDA

View Full Version : Found This Gem at my University Library....


SilverTauron
11-17-2012, 3:36 PM
"Current demographic trends favor pro-gun control forces over the long term.As urbanization increases and experience with firearms decreases, the NRA's support base erodes and the number of people who are uncomfortable with firearms rises. Party realignment also favors control proponents over time.Republican gains in the South and West have strengthened the position of control opponents in the Republican Party. Democratic losses in those areas free the Democrats to pursue gun control as a congressional issue. If the present trend continues, a Democratic majority in Congress in conjunction with a Democrat in the White House would eventually assure signifigant gun control legislation. Only opposition by a minority of primarily rural Southern and Western Democrats has precluded such an event.

Both of these trends constitute long, not short term threats. Opponents can fight an effective holding action for some time to come."

The best quote of the chapter.

"For those whose cultural or economic life depends upon the ability to freely transfer guns at will without regulation, no grounds for compromise exist."

-William J. Vizzard, Shots In The Dark. Published in 2000.

TTT
11-17-2012, 3:58 PM
The first quote seems to be pretty accurate to me.

RMP91
11-17-2012, 4:02 PM
That is from a time where gun control was all the rage.

Fast forward to today.... It's almost at the bottom of the ladder now.

How times change so drastically...

The wind is blowing at our backs, the momentum is in our favor.

Tarn_Helm
11-17-2012, 4:22 PM
That is from a time where gun control was all the rage.

Fast forward to today.... It's almost at the bottom of the ladder now.

How times change so drastically...

The wind is blowing at our backs, the momentum is in our favor.

That part in bold above is true only until the current administration installs additional anti-2nd Amendment judges in the SCOTUS.

After that, we will be fighting uphill battles at every level, again.

Our SCOTUS majority is doomed.

That is the only thing that really troubles me about the most recent presidential election.
:chris:

RMP91
11-17-2012, 4:30 PM
That part in bold above is true only until the current administration installs additional anti-2nd Amendment judges in the SCOTUS.

After that, we will be fighting uphill battles at every level, again.

Our SCOTUS majority is doomed.

That is the only thing that really troubles me about the most recent presidential election.
:chris:

Precedent established by SCOTUS takes decades to overturn, even if the political pendulum were to shift to the left tomorrow, our gun rights won't be in any immediate danger. Heller and Mcdonald are here to stay (at least for the next 20-30 years).

Also, keep in mind that most of the SCOTUS justices (save for Roberts, Kagan and Sotomayor) are in their 60s-70s, you're gonna see a whole new SCOTUS by 2025.

IVC
11-17-2012, 5:06 PM
This was written in 2000, way before Heller and McDonald established the "individual right" and "incorporated against the states". There are certain aspects of the 2A that are now carved in stone, but were open for debate in 2000.

SilverTauron
11-17-2012, 5:21 PM
This was written in 2000, way before Heller and McDonald established the "individual right" and "incorporated against the states". There are certain aspects of the 2A that are now carved in stone, but were open for debate in 2000.

Unfortunately its still subject to creative interpretation.


Ergo, Chicago interprets Heller to mean that while an outright ban on handguns isn't permitted, a $340 registration fee that includes travel costs to the suburbs for gun training on top of the gun purchase is completely kosher.

wjc
11-17-2012, 6:00 PM
"Not one inch..."

Capybara
11-17-2012, 6:09 PM
Bastids are trying to make this come true. I am in alignment with Tarn_Helm, we have some major battles coming.

The past four years have proven that this administration can get away with almost anything so circumventing SCOTUS rulings, the Bill of Rights and just running roughshod all over our rights will be a given, it's just a matter of how much the public will hold the President, Senate and House accountable for what they try to get away with.

ElvenSoul
11-17-2012, 6:16 PM
Sandy was good for something :)

IVC
11-17-2012, 9:08 PM
Ergo, Chicago interprets Heller to mean that while an outright ban on handguns isn't permitted, a $340 registration fee that includes travel costs to the suburbs for gun training on top of the gun purchase is completely kosher.

It takes time to change those who don't want to be changed. Much like the racial equality didn't start by having deep south states embracing it, the gun rights will not start with the leftist states leading the way.

We should look at the rabid anti gun organizations and recognize that the most severe handgun restriction they are lobbying for these days is a 10 round limit on magazines. They used to push for bans wherever and whenever they had political power.

MaHoTex
11-17-2012, 9:41 PM
That is from a time where gun control was all the rage.

Fast forward to today.... It's almost at the bottom of the ladder now.

How times change so drastically...

The wind is blowing at our backs, the momentum is in our favor.

That is all fine well and good except that we are in California with a super majority of grabbers passing laws at will. We are hosed come the next session.

speedrrracer
11-17-2012, 10:30 PM
I think the quote will be prophetic. Heller and McDonald are huge, no doubt, but even their time will come.

Think about this: In Texas, the fastest growing segment of the population is Hispanics. They voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Once the Hispanic population overtakes the other segments, and Texas becomes a blue state, it will be mathematically impossible to elect a Republican president.

Large population centers are more liberal. The population of America is only growing, but the land is not. Therefore, large population centers must become more common, and an increase in liberal sentiment can be expected.

If nothing changes, all the antis need is time.

RMP91
11-17-2012, 10:42 PM
I think the quote will be prophetic. Heller and McDonald are huge, no doubt, but even their time will come.

Think about this: In Texas, the fastest growing segment of the population is Hispanics. They voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Once the Hispanic population overtakes the other segments, and Texas becomes a blue state, it will be mathematically impossible to elect a Republican president.

Large population centers are more liberal. The population of America is only growing, but the land is not. Therefore, large population centers must become more common, and an increase in liberal sentiment can be expected.

If nothing changes, all the antis need is time.

Except that it will change.

Obama cannot run again in 2016 (beautiful thing called the 22nd Amendment, term limits), but if the trend of the last 20 years is any indication, we'll see a Republican president again in 2016. In 1992, Clinton (a democrat) served two terms until 2000 when George W. Bush (a republican) served two terms in 2008. Then we have Obama, going to serve his second and final term as President until 2016.

The left may be winning on several key fronts right now, but we still have the House, and if we don't have anymore royal ****-ups like we did with Akin and Mourdock I don't see the Democrats winning the House in 2014. Both Houses of Congress are rarely ever controlled by one party at the same time. It hasn't happened that often and when one party (Dems or Repubs) did have control, they barely did anything with it (Patriot Act and Obamacare notwithstanding).

Most of what comes out of politicians' mouths nowadays is either lip-service, rhetoric or plain old ***-kissing. I don't see that changing anytime soon.

RMP91
11-17-2012, 10:43 PM
That is all fine well and good except that we are in California with a super majority of grabbers passing laws at will. We are hosed come the next session.

I don't know about you, but I'm leaving California in 1 1/2 - 2 years time.

It's illegal for the gun-grabbers to deny my right to travel (and move).

There's always a way out.

IVC
11-17-2012, 11:10 PM
Large population centers are more liberal. The population of America is only growing, but the land is not. Therefore, large population centers must become more common, and an increase in liberal sentiment can be expected.

Senate is land-based, not population-based precisely for this reason.

Separately, video games are becoming ubiquitous and there is a lot of shooting there. Given that the technology allows the kids to research everything online and figure out that they can also shoot the real thing, combined with the 2A being part of the BOR and the Supreme Court rulings, the liberal bias will affect gun rights quite differently than it will affect social issues.

Fish
11-18-2012, 2:34 PM
"Current demographic trends favor pro-gun control forces over the long term.As urbanization increases and experience with firearms decreases, the NRA's support base erodes and the number of people who are uncomfortable with firearms rises. Party realignment also favors control proponents over time.Republican gains in the South and West have strengthened the position of control opponents in the Republican Party. Democratic losses in those areas free the Democrats to pursue gun control as a congressional issue. If the present trend continues, a Democratic majority in Congress in conjunction with a Democrat in the White House would eventually assure signifigant gun control legislation. Only opposition by a minority of primarily rural Southern and Western Democrats has precluded such an event.


There are a few kernels of truth in there, mostly the observations about demography, but the overall conclusion is wrong:

1) The author assumes, in line with the urban lefty worldview, that firearm rights are a rural white male issue. If that were true, then changing demographics would be a huge problem. But you know what? When I go to a range in the Bay Area, I see a whole lot of non-white people, I see quite a few women. Even in rural Northern California, with its overwhelmingly white population, there's a Hispanic contingent among the younger guys at the local rod and gun. And that's a beautiful thing. (The Republican Party needs to get its head screwed on straight and realize that it's a beautiful thing, but that's a longer discussion.)

2) Gun control is in large part the agenda of the older generation of leftists, the ones who grew up in the sixties and still in their heart of hearts are on a crusade to rid the world of violence with the power of love, man. I just don't see the younger generation, even in extremely liberal urban centers, buying into the simplistic and thoroughly repudiated idea that if only we loved everyone enough, violent tendencies would disappear from human nature. There certainly is the occasional political opportunist, call them "Leland Yee"s if you will, but true believers of the Dianne Feinstein breed will be out of political circulation in a decade, and I don't see anybody picking up the gun control torch and making it their flagship issue.

3) As government at all levels runs out of money, and more and more "City police department is understaffed and no longer responds to burglar alarm calls" make the local papers, people start thinking about what they'd do if an intruder broke the living room window. I've been surprised by the variety of people in my generally liberal workplace who've brought up the topic of firearm ownership with me, and by the fact that my overt support of firearm rights has thus far generated no negative reaction.

The best thing in the current environment that we as advocates of firearm rights can do is make sure that the support for these rights comes from as broad a base as possible. People who've lived in countries with no firearm rights, where criminal gangs and the police they've bought and paid for are the only ones with the means to wield deadly force and the common people are defenseless, are our natural allies. So are people in groups who are the objects of acts of violence in this country. Leftists in particular should be on our side: there is nothing more anti-establishment than denying the establishment a monopoly on the means to wield deadly force. (I've seen more than a few "the light bulb just went on" moments when I've put it to leftists in exactly this way. It only works on hardcore leftists, you're never going to flip a soccer mom this way, but the thing about hardcore ideologues is that when they flip, they flip all the way.)

The best thing we as advocates can do is reach across these lines, to communities that aren't traditionally part of the firearms rights fold, and help them get over the visceral aversion to firearms as symbols of violence and understand that they really do stand with us. This isn't and shouldn't be a Democrats-versus-Republicans issue as that author seems to think: gun control simply shouldn't find traction anywhere on the political spectrum. And we are getting there.

Just my 2c...

hoffmang
11-18-2012, 6:19 PM
That prediction has squarely failed the actual data:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/the-fix/StandingArt/guncontrolobama.jpg?uuid=1kIchNT8EeGy1SQZ0ifYsA

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/how-president-obama-changed-the-gun-debate/2012/07/23/gJQAY98u4W_blog.html

The major modern driver of the decline are both the Heller and McDonald decision when you look closely at the most modern data. Thank Alan Gura for reversing demographic trends.

-Gene

Mulay El Raisuli
11-19-2012, 7:10 AM
There are a few kernels of truth in there, mostly the observations about demography, but the overall conclusion is wrong:

1) The author assumes, in line with the urban lefty worldview, that firearm rights are a rural white male issue. If that were true, then changing demographics would be a huge problem. But you know what? When I go to a range in the Bay Area, I see a whole lot of non-white people, I see quite a few women. Even in rural Northern California, with its overwhelmingly white population, there's a Hispanic contingent among the younger guys at the local rod and gun. And that's a beautiful thing. (The Republican Party needs to get its head screwed on straight and realize that it's a beautiful thing, but that's a longer discussion.)

2) Gun control is in large part the agenda of the older generation of leftists, the ones who grew up in the sixties and still in their heart of hearts are on a crusade to rid the world of violence with the power of love, man. I just don't see the younger generation, even in extremely liberal urban centers, buying into the simplistic and thoroughly repudiated idea that if only we loved everyone enough, violent tendencies would disappear from human nature. There certainly is the occasional political opportunist, call them "Leland Yee"s if you will, but true believers of the Dianne Feinstein breed will be out of political circulation in a decade, and I don't see anybody picking up the gun control torch and making it their flagship issue.

3) As government at all levels runs out of money, and more and more "City police department is understaffed and no longer responds to burglar alarm calls" make the local papers, people start thinking about what they'd do if an intruder broke the living room window. I've been surprised by the variety of people in my generally liberal workplace who've brought up the topic of firearm ownership with me, and by the fact that my overt support of firearm rights has thus far generated no negative reaction.

The best thing in the current environment that we as advocates of firearm rights can do is make sure that the support for these rights comes from as broad a base as possible. People who've lived in countries with no firearm rights, where criminal gangs and the police they've bought and paid for are the only ones with the means to wield deadly force and the common people are defenseless, are our natural allies. So are people in groups who are the objects of acts of violence in this country. Leftists in particular should be on our side: there is nothing more anti-establishment than denying the establishment a monopoly on the means to wield deadly force. (I've seen more than a few "the light bulb just went on" moments when I've put it to leftists in exactly this way. It only works on hardcore leftists, you're never going to flip a soccer mom this way, but the thing about hardcore ideologues is that when they flip, they flip all the way.)

The best thing we as advocates can do is reach across these lines, to communities that aren't traditionally part of the firearms rights fold, and help them get over the visceral aversion to firearms as symbols of violence and understand that they really do stand with us. This isn't and shouldn't be a Democrats-versus-Republicans issue as that author seems to think: gun control simply shouldn't find traction anywhere on the political spectrum. And we are getting there.

Just my 2c...


Yes, Just as people who quit smoking (as an example) become the biggest PITAs in the world when it comes to urging others to quit the habit.

The rest is VERY good, too, IMHO.



The major modern driver of the decline are both the Heller and McDonald decision when you look closely at the most modern data. Thank Alan Gura for reversing demographic trends.

-Gene


YES! I do so five times a day.


The Raisuli

MaHoTex
11-19-2012, 9:27 AM
That prediction has squarely failed the actual data:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/the-fix/StandingArt/guncontrolobama.jpg?uuid=1kIchNT8EeGy1SQZ0ifYsA

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/how-president-obama-changed-the-gun-debate/2012/07/23/gJQAY98u4W_blog.html

The major modern driver of the decline are both the Heller and McDonald decision when you look closely at the most modern data. Thank Alan Gura for reversing demographic trends.

-Gene

Gene, with all due respect, this next session will buck the trends shown in the graph. I think it is a given that OLL ARs are gone from Cal. I believe we we will be wishing we had the Bullet Buttons that we all hate so much.

IVC
11-19-2012, 10:12 AM
Gene, with all due respect, this next session will buck the trends shown in the graph. I think it is a given that OLL ARs are gone from Cal. I believe we we will be wishing we had the Bullet Buttons that we all hate so much.

Instituting such a ban touches many Constitutional issues besides gun rights and is a very risky proposition for legislators to push, particularly in the light of Heller's "in common use" clause.

The anti gun forces know that a wrong move could risk invalidating the AWB completely and have serious consequences for any attempt at a national AWB, which is a part of the published DNC agenda. So, it's akin to a high stakes poker game where they are holding a pair of twos.

randian
11-19-2012, 10:29 AM
Think about this: In Texas, the fastest growing segment of the population is Hispanics.
And so many of them are used to the harsh anti-gun culture and official corruption of Mexico, so they'll fit in just fine with the Democrats.

stix213
11-19-2012, 12:11 PM
The best way to combat this theory, assuming it is even accurate, is to take fence sitters to the range. I've converted several, everyone needs to do the same.

Neil McCauley
11-19-2012, 2:23 PM
It's pretty obvious were losing. At least I know they'll never be able to take the ones away that we use to protect our homes and work.

hoffmang
11-19-2012, 6:52 PM
Gene, with all due respect, this next session will buck the trends shown in the graph. I think it is a given that OLL ARs are gone from Cal. I believe we we will be wishing we had the Bullet Buttons that we all hate so much.

Just like the last election bucked the 538 model?

Oh wait.

Please stop arguing pessimism against math.

-Gene

loose_electron
11-19-2012, 7:50 PM
The best way to combat this theory, assuming it is even accurate, is to take fence sitters to the range. I've converted several, everyone needs to do the same.

Quoted For Truth!

When people find out I shoot guns,
the discussion always includes a
friendly invitation to come try shooting at the range.

Start them off with something easy and not challenging
and you will win a convert. Leave the politics and vitriol
at home. No rants and no raves.

Teach safety, and that shooting can be fun and safe.

One convert at a time.

Tarn_Helm
11-19-2012, 9:32 PM
Just like the last election bucked the 538 model?

Oh wait.

Please stop arguing pessimism against math.

-Gene

(Bold added by me above.)

I hope you are right.

But it is not difficult to imagine the following conversation happening immediately after the surrender of Jefferson Davis:

Union Supporter #1: Well, we finally whooped the Democrat party.

Union Supporter #2: Hm. What if it finds a way to resurrect itself and enlist the support of those whom the South formerly enslaved?

Union Supporter #1: Please stop arguing pessimism against math.

Union Supporter #2: Well, I hope history proves me wrong.

Think about it.

It only took 20 years after the official end of the Civil War for a Democrat to regain our presidency.

Can you imagine if the Nazi party rehabilitated itself 20 years after the official end of WWII? And did so with the help of the Jewish people?! Sounds improbable?

The Democrats did that--and more. They even enlisted the support of those whom they oppressed and successfully "flipped the script" so that now, Americans of African descent, whom the Republicans liberated from slavery, have now embraced their former oppressors as their now salvific leaders.

Consider this.

Twenty short years after the Republicans successfully defeated the secessionist, pro-slavery Democrats, the Democrats came back into power--after having plunged the country into civil war.

All these Democrats became president after the civil war their party caused:

POTUS *****************************TERM(S) OF OFFICE
Grover Cleveland---------------------------March 4, 1885 - March 4, 1889

Grover Cleveland---------------------------March 4, 1893 - March 4, 1897

Woodrow Wilson---------------------------March 4, 1913 - March 4, 1921

Franklin D. Roosevelt----------------------March 4, 1933 - April 12, 1945

Harry S. Truman----------------------------April 12, 1945 - January 20, 1953

John F. Kennedy----------------------------January 20, 1961 - November 22, 1963

Lyndon B. Johnson-------------------------November 22, 1963 - January 20, 1969

Jimmy Carter--------------------------------January 20, 1977 - January 20, 1981

Bill Clinton----------------------------------January 20, 1993 - January 20, 2001

Barack Obama------------------------------January 20, 2009 - Incumbent [2012]

The period running from 1865 (end of the Civil War) to 2012 is 147 years.

During that span of time there have been 59 years during which the Democrats have held the presidency.

I'm certain that JFK would have served two terms.

Assuming JFK's two terms would not have irrevocably turned the country to a succession of Democrat presidencies down to the present day, that brings a hypothetical total of 65 years, 44% of the time between the end of the Civil War and the present.

Let's go back to the post-surrender conversation of the two Union Supporters.

Can you imagine if the "pessimist" would have suggested that the Democrat party could somehow regain power, enlist the support of African-Americans, run a two-time Black Democrat president and, over the next 147 years, control the office of the presidency for 44% of that time?

If you pare down the time period twenty years, i.e., 1885 to 2012 (instead of 1865 to 2012), and if you hypthesize a two-term JFK administration, then the Democrats held the presidency 51% of that period.

Even if you refuse to concede a hypothetical two-term JFK administration, that still gives the Democrat party 59 of the years from 1885 to 2012: 46%

The "pessimist" would have been right had he suggested that the Democrat party could somehow regain power, enlist the support of African-Americans, run a two-time Black Democrat president and, over a 127-year period (1885-2012), that the Democrats would control the office of the presidency for 46% of that time.

The fellow who retorted, "Please stop arguing pessimism against math," would surely have responded to the "pessimist" as you have responded to me.

Well, Gene, I hope history proves me wrong.

But it didn't in this counterfactual counterargument.

Statistical probability and even chaos theory might be philosophies that can help us explain and understand many phenomena, but "there is more in Heaven and Earth than is dreamt of" in any philosophy.

Reality often proves to be not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine.

And we certainly are living in strange days.

We'll learn.

The hard way, as humanity usually has.

Dreaded Claymore
11-19-2012, 11:35 PM
[lots of stuff about the Democratic party]

Your comparison to Nazis would be relevant if the Democratic Party had the enslavement and subjugation of Africans as the bulk of its platform and as the reason for its existence. It didn't, and doesn't. The Democratic Party is an American "big tent" party which was in the past sympathetic to Southern racists for demographic reasons. The comparison is not relevant.

Shane916
11-19-2012, 11:41 PM
He's a former chair/professor at sac state. Had him for several classes.

Dreaded Claymore
11-20-2012, 1:39 AM
Who? William J. Vizzard?

Tarn_Helm
11-20-2012, 6:35 AM
Your comparison to Nazis would be relevant if the Democratic Party had the enslavement and subjugation of Africans as the bulk of its platform and as the reason for its existence. It didn't, and doesn't. The Democratic Party is an American "big tent" party which was in the past sympathetic to Southern racists for demographic reasons. The comparison is not relevant.

Vague words and phrases like "the bulk of its platform" cannot effectively serve as a fig leaf for what its adherents perpetrated in the years leading up to the point in time when it came to be seen again by non-southerners as a viable party worthy of their participation and support.

The Democrat party did indeed have enough of the "bulk of its platform" invested in "the enslavement and subjugation of Africans" to foment our Civil War.

I'd call our Civil War "bulk" enough to refute your claim, with respect to the past.

With respect to the present, I point you to the perpetual enablement of dysfunction as the new means of "subjugating" impoverished African-American communities concentrated in America's inner cities.

The comparison is not only "relevant."

It is also more than a little "inconvenient."

Especially if the bulk of the electorate ever figures out that the party is wrong on race (http://www.amazon.com/Wrong-Race-Democratic-Partys-Buried/dp/B003R4ZJNE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1353421845&sr=1-1&keywords=wrong+on+race).

You might call that another "inconvenient truth," to borrow an ironic phrase from a champion of minimizing facts.